Welcome to The OFFICIAL Pure Pwnage forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Art?

Henry_

Posted 07 July 2008 - 03:49 AM

Henry_

Members

1,062 posts

Many people will remember a few months ago a Sydney Art Exhibition by Bill Henson was closed down becuase it reportdedly contained child porn. He has since been cleared of all charges, but now the art industry is under fire again thanks to Art Australia Monthy Magazine, who had a picture of a naked 6 year old girl on the cover of their magazine.

QUOTE

A photograph of a nude 6-year-old girl on the cover of a high-brow Australian art magazine on Monday sparked an uproar after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd called it disgusting, infuriating liberal art critics.

This month's taxpayer-funded Art Monthly Australia magazine placed the photograph of the young dark-haired girl on the cover, sitting and with one nipple showing, to protest censorship of a recent photo exhibition featuring similarly naked children.

"I can't stand this stuff," said Rudd, a staunch Christian whose centre-left Labor government won a sweeping victory over conservatives last year, in part on a vow to reinvigorate Australia's small but influential arts community.

"We're talking about the innocence of little children here. A little child cannot answer for themselves about whether they wish to be depicted in this way," Rudd added, as officials said they would review the magazine's funding.

Magazine editor Maurice O'Riordan said he hoped the July edition of the monthly magazine would restore "dignity to the debate" about artistic depictions of children and anyone else.

The magazine cover followed confiscation by police in May of photographs of a young girl taken by artist Bill Henson and briefly on display in a Sydney art gallery.

The cover photo, which had been on public exhibition in Australia for some time, was taken in 2003 by Melbourne photographer Polixeni Papapetrou and depicted her own daughter, Olympia Nelson, now aged 11.

The Australian Childhood Foundation said parents had no ethical right to consent to nude photographs being taken of their children, as it could have a psychological impact in later years.

Creed 90

Posted 07 July 2008 - 05:51 AM

Creed 90

Banned

918 posts

Gender:Male

Location:Pennsylvania

edit : I'm totally redoing this post because I've been thinking about this.

I understand and respect that he was trying to make it look natural or something like that, but I don't think he thought it through too well. Pedophiles ARE getting off on this. Right now. If that's ok with him, that doesn't mean the girl is ok with it, as she was 6 at the time and didn't understand. There's nothing wrong with the human body and showing it, in my opinion. However showing it just to get attention to your art or something to the same purpose, just makes you a bastard who is subjecting whoever is in the picture to the fapping of any half-ass pedophile who can use google images. I get the whole natural thing, but in todays day and age it's just not acceptable to publicize something like that. Porn is naked and suggesting something sexual, this isn't at all, so I'm not calling it porn. Honestly, couldn't he have painted a leaf over the stray nipple? It'd still be natural.

Weiman

Posted 07 July 2008 - 06:10 AM

Weiman

Best HW&SW Cont. & PP Savant '09

Global Moderators

33,901 posts

xfire:weiman

Gender:Male

Location:Netherlands

Interests:Gaming, Biochemistry.

Steam ID:Weiman

Gamer Army ID:2452

Company:Mu

Is nude photography automatically porn? No. Photography is a form of art, and the difference between pornography and art is that one is just what porn is for.. helping people get off, while art can have a whole multitude of intentions to do to the viewer. It can make a statement, try to cause emotions or just be amazing to look at. It's a case of the underlying mentality. Of course a mentality is hard to define, so this kind of stuff is basically a gray area. With both the parent's consent explicitly stating it was for the purpose of art should make it clear there were no pornographic intentions behind it IMO.

QUOTE (Weiman @ Apr 5 2009, 01:09 PM)

This is exactly what has been going on through the entire thread, and it's not the first time either.You come to us for advice..you just spell out what you want to get, and then ask us if it is okay, and we have to explain why it isn't. That's the world upside down.. If you would just say 'hey guys, I have an X amount of money, what should I buy?' Then this would be over in 2-3 posts, not 2-3 pages.

QUOTE (Kazzerax @ May 21 2009, 09:01 AM)

Every time someone goes against Weiman's sig I feel like they should be bludgeoned for a few minutes in the head to feel the headache I feel when I realize someone really IS that dense.

There were more pictures in the actual magazine article I believe... I saw them on the news, they were censored, but I'm not sure if that was done in the magazine or by the TV station. Anway... I dunno. I believe this is a very grey area. On the one hand, you can say yes, it will get paedophile's off. On the other hand, it is meant to have been in a non-sexual way, so can we truly say it is child pornography? I saw the girl and her father on the news. They seem to be quite an eccentric family. The girl almost seemed coached into what to say, but she could just have a formal manner. I don't know. But I did hear a very interesting quote a couple of weeks back on a 60 Minutes story... Something along the lines of society adapting because of what the paedophiles might do. Why does everything we do have to be so careful not to trigger them? Isn't that allowing them to control our lives and our society?

Personally, I think if it is done tastefully, as in genitals and in the case of girls, chest area, are covered, then it's not too bad. If they're fully posed spread out, I would be worried.

I had to research Naturism as part of a course, and having studied Art and Design for a large part of my life I've encountered a great many 'oh my god' naked people.

What makes a young naked girl or boy in a natural pose porn?

Nothing.

My opinion is that people who actively watch porn (which is an increasing majority) or have been fed too much 'sensation'/'sex sells' themed media, have let their minds rot to the point where they can't tell the difference between beauty and porn.

And that is fucking sad, frankly.

I find melonqueens comment about covering girls chests to be absolutely beyond belief - many children are raised outside at a young age, on the beaches, in their gardens without swim suits - and they don't care.I don't know what it's like where the rest of you live but on the beaches I've been to there are often lil ones roaming about in the altogether.Sure, it makes for some possibly embarrassing photos in the future but it is the nature of censorship, of 'the mysterious hidden body' that in my opinion propagates and to some extent encourages deviant pedophilic behaviour.

Are we to fear the human body, merely because of the tastes of a sickly few?Do we fear to leave our houses at all because we might be stabbed?Listen to yourselves.

If you have a problem with naked people, it's you that's wrong in the head.